US Government Open Data MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'Get[s] expanded property crime details,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then specifies the data source and key differentiators, and ends with the applicable offense codes. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., data format, errors, limits) and does not mention the output structure. While it covers the 'what' and 'when,' it misses the 'how' and 'what to expect,' making it minimally viable but with clear gaps for a tool of this nature.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it clarifies that the 'offense' parameter includes specific crime types (burglary, larceny, etc.), which is redundant with the schema's enum description. It does not provide additional context for other parameters like 'state', 'ori', or 'type'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds little extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get expanded property crime details from the FBI (Supplemental Return / Return A data).' It specifies the exact resource (property crime details), distinguishes it from summarized counts by mentioning 'additional breakdowns beyond summarized counts,' and lists the specific offense types covered (burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, robbery). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fbi_crime_summarized' by focusing on expanded details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for 'expanded property crime details' and 'additional breakdowns beyond summarized counts,' implying it should be used instead of summarized tools when more granular data is needed. It explicitly lists the applicable offense codes (NB, NL, NMVT, NROB), guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'fbi_crime_summarized'), which prevents a score of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.